OK so I read the horrible reviews this film received, so when it was playing on TV I wasn't that excited. And then I just started to watch it, and it turned out to be not so horrible after all.In the first few minutes it looked like some cheap Tarantino-ripoff, only without the good dialogue and style, and it was painful I have to admit. The interactions between the characters aren't as witty as funny as in a QT movie, while obviously the makers were aiming at capturing the same atmosphere, but it just comes off painfully unfunny and forced.But, after 20 minutes the movie starts to become slightly different, like somehow the makers just decided to 'OK we can't copy Tarantino so let's just make our own movie'. There are actually a few good jokes and even a really minor portion of style as well. In the second act the movie almost catches up, there are a few moments of actual tension, while also some good jokes. I also liked the kind of mystery surrounding the main character, as his motives and whole persona isn't quite clear in the first part of the movie. It is too bad that in the third act the movie turns from 'kind of funny-weird but OK' to 'completely ridiculous' in about a few minutes. Characters just start to make idiotic decisions (which wasn't usual before), motivations make no sense and even change from one extent to another, and all in all the whole stuff doesn't make sense anymore. Maybe the creators just realized that they were at the end of the movie, and something like 'hey this is the end of our Tarantino lookalike movie, so let's just make a you-didn't-expected- everyone-shoots-at-everyone ending because that makes Tarantino movies good, right?' went down, what completely ruined the movie in my opinion.There is also a huuuuuge plot hole as well, where one character's motives are just doesn't make ANY sense, although you will only realize that after the last 'reveal' scene of the movie. BTW, the whole mystery of the bag is a bit (OK, way too) forced, they tried to build up this huge anticipation and mystery about it, but you can easily guess by the end, what is in the bag after all.A bit waste of good talent as well, Cusack is always likable and he delivers his standards here too, DeNiro clearly does not take things too seriously (in fact, a bit over the top, especially at the end, which just further emphasizes the awfulness of the whole scene). I haven't heard about the female lead before, but I found her OK in this movie.All in all it's a 6.5/10 for me, it is a perfectly disposable, one- watch thriller that's actually not bad when it's not trying to be some other movie. It could be quite fun if you have the right mindset for it.

"In all due respect,why don't you just hire the FedEx? Because I'm hiring you, Jack."Do you like the sarcastic and ironic twist of "Pulp Fiction" and "Reservoir dogs" ? Looking forward to some bloody scenes filled with senseless violence? Or are you addicted to the absurd touch of a David Lynch creation full of confusing plot lines and bizarre characters like in "Twin Peaks" ? Then "The Bag Man" could be a movie you fancy. Not that this creation can match the work of Tarantino or Lynch. But despite the thin story with a simplistic content, it was somewhat entertaining for me in various ways.In terms of content, director David Grovic kept it real simple. We see Jack (John Cusack) in a meeting with Dragna (Robert De Niro) while travelling with his private jet, where they discuss a new assignment for Jack. A dead simple task for Jack who, as we find out later, already did odd jobs for Dragna for many years. He needs to pick up a bag somewhere and bring it back to Dragna without glancing at the content. Jack assumes that'll be a piece of cake, until he notices that he's being attacked by strangers who all know something about the bag and who try their utter best to get it in their possession.What comes next is the appearance of a series of crazy, obscure characters and weird persons. A receptionist who sounds as if he's under influence all the time. He looks completely innocent and a bit fogey, until you touch his wheelchair. Then there's a duo looking like secret agents. A tall prostitute with a pair of legs that every woman would be jealous of and dressed in an absurd-looking Superwoman outfit. She's accompanied by a dwarf and a pimp with an eye patch. Then we are introduced to some police officers who are way too curious and use some rather perverse methods of interrogation. And it doesn't take long before bodies start piling up. Eventually the film degenerates into a complicated cat and mouse game, full of strange incomprehensible twists in the storyline and a reasonably disappointing denouement. I thought of "Seven" immediately.For me it's a complete mystery how they could persuade the two well-known actors De Niro and Cusack to play in such a surreal and lugubrious film. Admittedly, the two men haven't played in a memorable film for a long time. The last movies I've seen with De Niro ("The Big Wedding", "Killing Season", "The Family" and "Last Vegas") aren't comparable with great movies he played in before. Although he has some experience in playing a gangster, don't expect him to look like Al Capone as in "The Untouchables." The only memorable thing and real eye-catcher there is to remember when it comes to Dragna, is the absurd and wrong hairstyle he got. Also Cusack's contributions to recent films were minimal and insignificant ("2012", "The Numbers Station", "Grand Piano" and "The Prince"). The only striking thing is his disinterested and sleepy look he demonstrates in each of these movies (or might it be an attempt to look impassive ?). In retrospect, this might just be the link between both actors and the reason why they were summoned.Next to the two main actors whose performances were still acceptable (especially Cusack who remained stoically calm despite the ongoing chaos) although it was substandard, there was also Crispin Glover (yes George McFly from "Back to the Future"), who played a memorable part as the slightly deranged desk clerk Ned. Conversely there was the failure of Rebecca Da Costa as the sensual Rivka whose amount of shown naked skin, curves and fleshy lips impress more than her acting skills. Expect some tight stretch clothing, filled with quivering flesh which looks like popping out any moment. And there's also a scene at the sheriff's that appeals to one's imagination. I like to watch such a surreal, dark film full of sarcastic humor and violence. But to be honest, I think that there's only one person who can mix these ingredients into an explosive, entertaining cocktail : Tarantino. "The Bag Man" isn't a bad thriller but sadly enough the tension and suspense are absent.More reviews here : http://bit.ly/1KIdQMT

I love weird movies, but this is just trying way, way too hard. The Serbian midget; the one-eyed pimp; the currency-trading, private 727-owning mob boss; the Amazonian hooker/assassin; etc. was all too much. This has got to have gone straight to video, even though it starred both Robert De Niro and John Cusack. It never clicks, even though it does have a few surprising reveals, especially at the end. As the person who watched it with me commented, it's totally clichéd quirkiness--way too forced and strained, coming off much like a second-rate David Lynch movie. It probably looked pretty good in script form, but just didn't come together. Also, if it matters to you, there was not a single decent, likable, or sympathetic character in the entire movie. Everyone and everything is bleak, pretty much from beginning to end.

A true oddity of a film that marks it near impossible to categorize, The Bag Man is bargain basement filmmaking at its most strange and oddly intriguing and a film that you can sense being added to the plethora's of cult movies marked "So bad it's so good" for make no doubt about it readers The Bag Man is a bad movie that still deserves to be checked out.With headliners in the form of the ever slumming it John Cusack and the increasingly stuck on auto pilot Robert De Niro there is no doubt that many viewers will check into this seedy joint expecting some high quality thrills and spills but they will find themselves surely disappointed with a tale that veers frequently between dark brutal violence, Lynch like abstract comical moments and a story that will keep you glued thanks to the human nature in all of us wanting to know just what is in the titular "bag" and what is Mr. De Niro's crime boss Dragna actually up to. The Bag Man's premise and execution are all wholly unbelievable yet it's all played and directed in such a way that it all works to a low level of entertainment.John Cusack and his humongous mullet have fun with a role that is all types of generic in the form of hit-man/sad sack Jack and relative newcomer Da Costa isn't completely wasted as street girl with a conscience Rivka but it's in the supports of Crispin Glover and De Niro that the film has some of its most wacky and memorable moments. Glover while not having abundant screen time makes the most of his wheelchair bound creepy motel owner Ned and De Niro gets to chew through some seriously over the top monologues as Dragna and even gets one of the more shocking acts of on screen violence in recent memory under his belt within the first 30 minutes of the film. There is also strange joyous quality's shown by director Grovic who masters proceedings like some movie class graduate having fun with bright lights and dim lit hotel rooms and forgetting to direct with any type of originality.The Bag Man is by no means a film worthy of rushing out to get but it's also a unique and frequently must see to believe strange journey filled with one eyed pimps, Croatian midgets, a hamming it acting great and a mysterious bag and all those elements ad up to a film that is worthy of a late night watch and no doubt a few laughs with a room full of film lovers.2 bad cases of road rash out of 5 For more movie reviews and opinions check into - www.jordanandeddie.wordpress.com